His heart was visible, and the dismal sack that maketh excrement of what is eaten.

Join Date

Mar 2006

Posts

9,477

--

Originally Posted by ermghoti

Because some intoxicants are bad because they are illegal. If marijuana were never made illegal, there would be no move to ban it now. There is no particularly valid reason to disallow the use of marijuana if alcohol is legal. Ergo it is illegal because there was a racially charged campaign to make it so. As you say, it will probably be straight-up legal for adults to use within 10-15 years, due to the lack of a compelling argument against it.

I'm not necessarily against legalizing marijuana. It's not something I care too much about one way or the other. But there is a compelling argument against legalization, just as there are compelling arguments for legalization.

The primary difference between marijuana and alcohol, as I see it is that intoxication is always the outcome of smoking weed. People all around the world drink alcohol for reasons other than getting drunk - like they enjoy the taste of a beer to wash down their meal.

Nevertheless, I'm kind of in favor of more people smoking weed because regular weed usage turns people into losers (something all lazy potheads vehemently deny). More losers means less competition for the **** I want to obtain in life.

This is the part where potheads smugly point to some genius pothead outlier as proof that weed doesn't make you dull and lazy. Uh huh. Keep thinking that. Better for me.

The primary difference between marijuana and alcohol, as I see it is that intoxication is always the outcome of smoking weed. People all around the world drink alcohol for reasons other than getting drunk - like they enjoy the taste of a beer to wash down their meal.

That is a distinction, but that one beer still intoxicates slightly, in fact, enough to qualify as DUI in some places. The larger point being it is not illegal to drink for the purpose of becoming intoxicated, even if it isn't always the goal.

His heart was visible, and the dismal sack that maketh excrement of what is eaten.

Join Date

Mar 2006

Posts

9,477

1

Originally Posted by ermghoti

That is a distinction, but that one beer still intoxicates slightly, in fact, enough to qualify as DUI in some places. The larger point being it is not illegal to drink for the purpose of becoming intoxicated, even if it isn't always the goal.

Depends on your weight and the alchohol content in the beverage. But I don't disagree with your point.

I'm not necessarily against legalizing marijuana. It's not something I care too much about one way or the other. But there is a compelling argument against legalization, just as there are compelling arguments for legalization.

The primary difference between marijuana and alcohol, as I see it is that intoxication is always the outcome of smoking weed. People all around the world drink alcohol for reasons other than getting drunk - like they enjoy the taste of a beer to wash down their meal.

Nevertheless, I'm kind of in favor of more people smoking weed because regular weed usage turns people into losers (something all lazy potheads vehemently deny). More losers means less competition for the **** I want to obtain in life.

This is the part where potheads smugly point to some genius pothead outlier as proof that weed doesn't make you dull and lazy. Uh huh. Keep thinking that. Better for me.

You say that the primary goal of weed is to intoxicate, but it seems as if a lot of use for medical purposes is also emerging. And some are in pill form so no need to smoke it. So why is there still so much resistance to medical marijuana??

His heart was visible, and the dismal sack that maketh excrement of what is eaten.

Join Date

Mar 2006

Posts

9,477

--

Originally Posted by Bneterasedmynam

You say that the primary goal of weed is to intoxicate, but it seems as if a lot of use for medical purposes is also emerging. And some are in pill form so no need to smoke it. So why is there still so much resistance to medical marijuana??

99942 Apophis was supposed to destroy the Earth in 2029, and then maybe in 2036, before it was finally dropped to Torino 0.

Likewise, cancers will be the #1 killer in 2030 unless they're all cured, or some are cured, or survival rates are higher...all three of which seem like possible outcomes.

Adding to the burden will be an increase in the number of cancer survivors. Fifty years ago, only a handful of "minimally effective" treatments for cancer existed, according to the report. Today, there are more than 170 FDA-approved anti-cancer drugs.

Two-thirds of Americans now live at least five years after a cancer diagnosis, up from about half in the 1970s, the report authors write. Survivors need ongoing care, as they're at higher risk for other types of cancer and conditions such as diabetes, cardiovascular disease and osteoporosis.